Informe definitivo - Informe núm. 134, Noviembre 1972

1. 18. The complaint of the Guyana Agricultural Workers' Union is contained in a communication dated 6 May 1972 addressed direct to the ILO. By a communication dated 24 June 1972, the complainants submitted further information in substantiation of their complaint. Both the complaint and the substantiating information were transmitted to the Government, which furnished its observations thereon by a communication dated 21 September 1972.
2. 19. Guyana has ratified both the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87), and the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).

A. A. The complainants' allegations

1. 20. It is alleged that the police, acting in compliance with directives received from the Government, refused permission for the Guyana Agricultural Workers' Union (GAWU) to hold a procession on May Day. According to the complainants, workers from the sugar plantations who were proceeding from nearby villages along the road to Good Hope were harassed and intimidated by a police riot squad, which dispersed them with tear gas. The complainants further claim that in another area, to the east and west coasts of the county of Berbice, over fifty workers were arrested on may Day and detained in some cases until 7 p.m. that night; they were also ordered to report at the police station several times between 1 and 25 May, to be told finally that there were no charges against them.
2. 21. In the opinion of the complainants the refusal of permission for them to hold processions on May Day constitutes a discriminatory measure since at the same time, in Georgetown, the TUC was granted permission to hold such processions.
3. 22. In its observations the Government confirms that permission was given for the May Day marches organised by the TUC. It adds that these events placed a great burden on the police, who had to ensure that everything proceeded in an orderly manner.
4. 23. The Government goes on to state that the GAWU, which is closely aligned with the People's Progressive Party, applied for permission to hold marches and rallies in the areas of Berbice, East Demerara and West Demerara. These marches and rallies, which were to be spread over a considerable geographical area, would have stretched out the resources of the police to the detriment of their effectiveness in preserving law and order. It was for this reason, according to the Government, that, while permission was granted for the meetings the GAWU wished to hold on 1 May, its applications to hold marches were refused.
5. 24. The Government declares that the action by the police in this respect was taken purely in the national interest and solely with a view to preventing situations which might possibly break down into disorder and lawlessness.
6. 25. In conclusion, the Government states that the police did carry out investigations and take certain action in order to ensure that the ban on the marches was respected, and admits that in such circumstances it is likely that a certain amount of hardship of one kind or another may be experienced by a citizen.

B. B. The Committee's conclusions

1. 26. The Committee has always considered that the right to organise public meetings and processions on the occasion of May Day constitutes an important aspect of trade union rights. The Committee has also taken the view, however, that it rests with the Government, which is responsible for the maintenance of public order, to decide in the exercise of its corresponding powers whether meetings or demonstrations may in certain special circumstances endanger public order and security and to take adequate preventive measures.
2. 27. In the present case, particularly in view of the links between the complaining union and a political party, the Government appears to have been afraid that the proposed marches, if authorised, might give rise to disturbances. The Committee is not in a position to ascertain whether these fears may have, in fact, been justified. It considers that, generally speaking, if authorisation for public meetings or marches depends on the individual circumstances of each case, the decisions taken should not in any way be discriminatory.